Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds valuable behavioral details: the cost ($0.003), the return of payment instructions for the Saylor endpoint, and the lack of a provider account requirement. These are beyond what annotations provide and are essential for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and output fields, the second adds cost and access requirements. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, and the schema and annotations cover safety and parameter details. The description adds cost and authentication context, which is important. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema, that might be a gap; however, the description hints at 'payment instructions' and the data fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. Slight lack of return structure prevents a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents the 'country' parameter, including an example ('US or GB') and the note that aggregates are excluded. The description only repeats 'two-letter country code' and does not add any additional semantics, formatting details, or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly specifies the resource (two-letter country code) and the expected output (World Bank name, region, capital, income group, lending classification). It distinctly positions this tool as a data-enrichment lookup, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_economy_report or get_fx_report without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'for data enrichment,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on exclusions (e.g., aggregates are excluded, but that's in the schema, not the description). The usage context is present but not fully articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.